CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS GoneFishing

Reward Points:126
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
94%
Arguments:147
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

scientists with Nobel prizes say otherwise. It will be a tough decision to believe them or you.

That would be incorrect. The spoon that you feed from, needs to be replaced.

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

(Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

George Wald doesn't speak for all of science nor does this claimed representation fit accurately to what science says. In fact your quote is a a falsehood that misrepresents what Wald actually said. Here is what he actually said;

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated"

(Sidney W. Fox, "The Origins of Pre-Biological Systems)

"The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle---an architect."

(Scientist Allan Sandage)

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

(Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

What scientist and what field, do you want them from?

"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

(Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205)

-1 points

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

(Dr. George Wald Evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

0 points

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Science has disproved the bible. Science has not disproved God."

First ive ever heard of this, Prove it?

"Science has provided an explanation".

No, they have not.

"Our existence is exactly why religion exists. We invented it to interpret our existence and reality."

You cant invent something that already existed.

"And now it isn't. Don't people usually get smarter as time goes on?"

Sure.

"You have claimed that God exists and you have no actual evidence for it. Science deals with topics that have evidence. Therefore, science doesn't deal with God."

"Science is in the business of proving or disproving the rest of science."

So you cannot makes claims about god. Thanks.

It appears you disputed me as a knee jerk reaction. Your inability to address what I have said leads me to believe you are not critically thinking or reading what I wrote - "Science has no business disproving something that hasn't been proven."

All scientists, STOP where you are at.

GoneFishing(126) Clarified
3 points

And God said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!!!!". And so it was done.

not to mention some of the fallacies of evolution:

Fallacy #1: Affirming the consequent

Fallacy #2: Confirmation bias

Fallacy #3: Evidence denial

GoneFishing(126) Clarified
1 point

Dont bother, if he would educate himself in this area... he wouldn't be posting.


Winning Position: Yes, GMO are impacting health

About Me


"The world is what you think it is."

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Education: In College

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here